Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vaibhav Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35122
1 MCRC-29762-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 10 th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29762 of 2023
VAIBHAV BHARTI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tushar Bhedasgaonkar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Santosh Singh Thakur - Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent /
State.
Shri Namit Goswami - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter for short referred as, ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred for quashment of
First Information Report registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore Urban,
Indore at Crime No.284/2022 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323,
294, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961l; proceeding in RCT No.14193/2022 arising out of the
aforesaid FIR; and all consequent proceedings thereto.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that complainant Surbhi Bharti was
married to applicant No.1 – Vaibhav Bharti on 29/06/2020. Applicant No.2 –
Vishnu Bharti is father-in-law, applicant No.3 – Sunita Bharti is mother-in-law,
applicant No.4 – Saurabh Bharti is brother of the husband (Devar) and applicant
No.5 – Shweta Chandel is sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant. On
20/12/2022 complainant lodged a report with the aforesaid police station that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 13-12-2024
11:43:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35122
2 MCRC-29762-2023
applicants are demanding Rs.10 Lakhs and hurling filthy abuses with threatening
to kill her and thus, are harassing her mentally and physically. This started after 15
days of marriage. They have also misappropriated her Streedhan. The applicants
are taunting on trivial matters and used to alleged that if they had married their son
applicant No.1 – Vaibhav Bharti to some other woman, they have received more
dowry. On this allegations, the aforesaid FIR was lodged on written complaint of
the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if allegations in the
written complaint by the complainant are true then the alleged harassment started
after 15 days of marriage, then why she remain silent for near about two years and
chose to file written complaint of harassment on the ground of demand of dowry
on 20/12/2022. She has also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights
on 02/01/2023. If she was really being harassed by her husband and his relatives
then it was not possible for any lady to file application for restitution of conjugal
rights for living with the persons who are harassing her. On these contentions,
learned counsel made a point to built his case that filing of petition under Section
9 of Hindu Marriage Act is a mere eyewash. She herself has harassed her husband
– applicant Vaibhav Bharti and his other relatives. Therefore, applicant Vaibhav
Bharti on 19/04/2022, much before filing of the present FIR, had filed a written
complaint at Police Station Khajrana about mental and physical cruelty from the
side of her wife. Learned counsel has further submitted that impugned FIR has
been filed as a counter blast. It will be sheer abuse of process of law, if criminal
proceedings against the applicants are allowed to continue. On these contentions,
he prays for quashing the FIR, criminal case arising out of the aforesaid FIR and
proceedings subsequent thereto.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 13-12-2024
11:43:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35122
3 MCRC-29762-2023
4. To bolster his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the orders /
judgments passed in the case of Rohit Kasera Vs. State of M. P. reported in 2021
(III) MPWN 2; Jalso Bai (Smt.) Vs. Surendra Kumar reported in 2021 (III)
MPWN 3; Mukesh Agrawal & 3 Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported in 1994
Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 306 ; Kallu Khan & Ors. Vs. State of M. P. & Ors. reported in
I.L.R. [2013] M.P., 2038 ; Dashrath P. Bundela and Others Vs. State of M.P. and
Another reported in 2012 (1) M.P.H.T. 196 ; and Vivek Kumar Mandloi & ORs.
Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. passed in M.Cr.C.No.27229/2023 on
20/12/2023.
5. Sounding contra note, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant submits that complainant has filed written complaint for the first time
on 24/06/2022, which he has filed with his reply as Annexure-R/1. Complaint by
the complainant was again filed on 15/11/2022, which he has annexed with reply
as Annexure-R/3, in which specific allegations have been levelled against the
applicants. Allegations can be proved only by adducing evidence. There is
sufficient material to prosecute the applicants, therefore, there is no ground to
quash the FIR and criminal proceedings against the applicants. Petition is
unmerited, hence deserves dismissal.
6. Leaned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer and prays for
dismissal of the petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From perusal of the written complaint on the basis of which FIR has been
lodged, it is found that omnibus allegations against the applicants have been
levelled. In the FIR, it has been mentioned that after 15 days of marriage, all the
applicants have started harassing her by way of taunting on the ground that dowry
as expected has not been given and also started demanding Rs.10 Lakhs by way of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 13-12-2024
11:43:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35122
4 MCRC-29762-2023
dowry. No specific date, time and place has been mentioned with regard to the
aforesaid demand and harassment meted out to the complainant.
9. In the case of Rohit Kasera (Supra) , it has been held by co-ordinate
Bench of this Court that if specific date, time and place of harassment and specific
acts has not been mentioned then it will be presumed that FIR does not disclose
commission of offence as alleged and it will be proper to quash the FIR with
regard to demand of dowry.
10. It is also noteworthy here that if the applicants including husband was
harassing her then what prompted the complainant to file a petition under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 02/01/2023, just
near about after 13 days. The allegations levelled in plaint under Section 9 have
not found place in the FIR. In the aforesaid plaint, it is averred that her Devar
Saurabh Bharti was harassing her by way of molesting time and again. No such
allegations found place in the FIR, which means the story as narrated in the plaint
under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is concocted and after thought. Much
before filing of the FIR applicant Vaibhav Bharti on 19/04/2022 has filed a
complaint against the complainant, her wife Surbhi for meeting out various types
of harassment to him by way of picking quarrel on trivial grounds and threatening
him to spoil his life. The aforesaid facts reveal that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the matter by way of general omnibus allegations made in the
impugned FIR.
11. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch.
Bhajanlal reported in (1992) Supp(1) SCC 335 , in para-7 the Hon’ble Apex Court
identified following cases in which F.I.R/ complaint can be quashed :-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 13-12-2024
11:43:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:351225 MCRC-29762-2023
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
12. In Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that
when a prayer for quashment of the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the
court when it exercises powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., only has to consider
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 13-12-2024
11:43:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35122
6 MCRC-29762-2023
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or
not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of
the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency / police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
13. In the case of Ramesh Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
reported in 2020 SCC OnLine MP 887 , the Division Bench of this Court has
examined the matter in detail and placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble the
Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012)9
SCC 460 has held as under:
“10. As per the provision of law which flows from the judgment in
Amit Kapoor (supra), it is clear that at the stage, at which the
present case is, the court should not examine the facts, evidence
and material on record to determine whether there is sufficient
material, which may end in a conviction. The court is only
concerned with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will
constitute an offence.
Similarly, under section 482 Cr.P.C the court cannot take into
consideration external materials given by an accused for arriving to
a conclusion that no offence was disclosed or there was possibility
of his acquittal. Whether mens rea behind the PC Act of forgery is
present or not cannot be decided at this early stage and is best to be
left to be adjudicated by the Trial Court after marshalling of
evidence.”
14. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law as expounded by our own
High Court and the Apex Court, in the instant case that there are mere bald
allegations against the applicants. Details with regard to the allegations are
lacking. Mere use of the word harassment ‘mentally and physically’ are not
sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. Unless those acts are
described it cannot be concluded that whether those acts amounted to harassment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 13-12-2024
11:43:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35122
7 MCRC-29762-2023
or subjecting a person to cruelty.
15. In the considered view of this Court, it will be sheer abuse of process of
law, if prosecution is allowed to continue in the factual matrix of the present
petition. Hence, this petition is allowed and FIR registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, Indore Urban, Indore at Crime No.284/2022 for the offences under
Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as proceeding in RCT No.14193/2022 arising out of
the aforesaid FIR and all other consequent proceedings thereto are hereby quashed
and set aside.
16. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 13-12-2024
11:43:07